Let me be clear upfront: I welcome more reporting on issues around the complex issues involving sexuality and LGBTIQ issues.

The more of these stories in mainstream press it helps bring key issues and a fresh perspective to a broader Australian audience and can only be a good thing… right? Well not necessarily.

Opponents of public broadcasting are always looking for a cheap and easy way to kick both the ABC and SBS and in the case of this new website, multicultural broadcaster SBS is preparing to launch, they may be about to hand them a fresh bucketload of ammunition.

You see, the problem arises when that new LGTBI player in the space is a cash strapped public broadcaster SBS, who is now seeking new audiences in a relatively small niche, and will be competing for ad dollars with a gay press that, to be brutally honest, generally alternates across a financial spectrum somewhere between break even to broke.

But let me take a step back.

This week multicultural broadcaster SBS quietly laid the groundwork for launching a new sexuality website, spearheaded by a former editor of Star Observer Drew Sheldrick, launching a Twitter handle @SBSexuality and rolling out a number of LGTBI stories on the feed.

Even its critics would struggle to claim a story like this isn’t within SBS’s charter remit, but the problem for the public broadcaster is that many of these topics are already being covered by the mainstream press of by a financially challenged gay press and their expanded intervention in the space may risk crowding out the existing commercial operators.

Now many will argue the more stories the better. As a gay man myself, I certainly understand that perspective but I fear that, over the long term, SBS could potentially be more foe than friend if the number of people telling stories, from an LGTBI perspective, diminishes.

SBS is currently facing a $28.5m funding short fall over four years and for this reason the decision of SBS managing director Michael Ebeid and his team to continue launching new initiatives such as its new Food Channel is surprising.

Heald firmly downplayed the impact of the new site, noting that Sheldrick’s role was only a contract position and saying: “It’s the Mardi Gras really. We are just trying to take the Mardi Gras content to a broad audience – we are really just amplifying our efforts in the space.”

SBS management should be careful they don’t repeat history – not only will it arm their critics with new ammunition but they could also help bring about a situation where there are less not more LGBTI perspectives in the media.

Nic Christensen worked for Mumbrella from 2013 to 2016, in roles including deputy editor and media & technology editor.
He is former media writer for The Australian and has also worked as a reporter for The Daily Telegraph and senior producer for Radio 2GB.

TBH, this approach really concerns me. I love my SBS and I desperately want it to cut through. But it seems to be lurching all over the place. Food? More LGBTI stuff? I think this has been covered elsewhere on their site and out in the market as this article points out. I’d have thought they’d try to fix SBS 2 first before going out into other areas. Who’s running this joint?

Interesting you mention the ABC Fact Checking debacle. The ABC has already said publicly that it is cancelling specialist NBN coverage to let political viewpoints and the Fact Checking unit focus on them instead. But the Promise Checker on the ABC’s website is straight outta Malcolm Turnbull’s press office. That they put private media out of business to deliver propaganda that makes them sound like a state broadcaster should trouble us all.

The commercial neutrality provisions of government are way too weak to allow government funded organisations to compete in the commercial space. Would SBS launch this site if they had to fully fund it’s real cost same as their competitors – not a chance. This screws the advertising market just as much as say the Comcar drivers started moonlighting in competition to Uber and the Taxis, whilst we pay for their petrol and vehicle. Sure let SBS play, but don’t fund them to compete!

Sure. SBS no doubt sees its charter’s pledge to reflect diversity:
“2 (h) contribute to extending the range of Australian television and radio services, and reflect the changing nature of Australian society, by presenting many points of view and using innovative forms of expression.”
So far so good. Can we therefore expect an SBS site for the Abetz/Bernadi Tea Party, or maybe the Right to Life mob? I doubt it, and so I question the somewhat partial motives here.
But never mind, no one’s watching (certainly no one in any kind of authority) because otherwise somebody might have picked up the interesting trend on SBS1 away from anoher charter pledge, the one right at the top:
“(1) The principal function of SBS is to provide multilingual and multicultural radio, television and digital media services that inform, educate and entertain all Australians and, in doing so, reflect Australia’s multicultural society.”
Seldom multilingual during peak viewing and more, with programming that’s mostly a curious mix of British “Discovery channel”-type stuff, by Brits or about them, plus some rather trans-Atlantic entertainment offerings. Good as Michael Portillo or Fargo maybe, they reveal a lack of interest in Australia’s ethnic diversity or its community needs – and anybody’s interest in the television or movie outputs of those community’s homelands.
And if I recall, one those communities and also the countries they came from were prominent in SBS news and current affairs programs. Now they’re buried after imitation ABC stories about federal politics.
That once made SBS truly unique and enjoyable. Now it is a cheaper imitation of Foxtel, as long as you don’t mind repeats of Rick Stein or tours of British castles and tunnels!